Prison Abuse

Published on: January 26, 2026

Failure to Exhaust and Deliberate Indifference Standards Applied to Inmate Medical Claim. Sonds v. St. Barnabas Correctional Health Services, 151 F. Supp. 2d 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)

by Stephen Bilkis

When an incarcerated person claims that prison officials denied medical care, federal law sets clear requirements. Before filing a lawsuit in federal court, an inmate must first use the prison grievance system. In addition, to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for denial of medical care, the inmate must show that officials were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. Courts apply both procedural and substantive rules in reviewing these cases.

In Sonds v. St. Barnabas Correctional Health Services, 151 F. Supp. 2d 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York examined both requirements. The court addressed whether the plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act and whether the facts alleged satisfied the constitutional standard for deliberate indifference.

Background Facts

Published on: January 16, 2026

Liability for inmate-on-inmate assault. Sanchez v. State of New York, 99 N.Y.2d 247 (2002)

by Stephen Bilkis

Under New York law, the State has a duty to protect inmates in its custody from reasonably foreseeable harm. In correctional facilities, this duty includes taking reasonable steps to prevent assaults by other inmates. The State is not an insurer of inmate safety. It is responsible only for risks that it knew or should have known about under the circumstances.

In Sanchez v. State of New York, 99 N.Y.2d 247 (2002), the Court of Appeals addressed how courts should analyze foreseeability in an inmate-on-inmate assault case. The decision clarified the scope of the State’s duty and explained when a negligence claim against the State may proceed to trial.

Background Facts

Published on: January 9, 2026

Correctional Facility Liability for Inmate Assault: Rodriguez v. City of New York, 38 A.D.3d 349 (1st Dep’t 2007)

by Stephen Bilkis

New York law requires correctional authorities to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from foreseeable harm. While the State and municipalities are not insurers of inmate safety, they owe a duty of care to safeguard those in custody from reasonably foreseeable risks, including inmate-on-inmate violence. When an assault occurs in a detention facility, courts examine whether officials had actual or constructive notice of a risk and whether they failed to take reasonable measures to prevent harm. In Rodriguez v. City of New York, 38 A.D.3d 349 (1st Dep’t 2007), the Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed whether the City could be held liable for a razor attack committed by one inmate against another inside a segregation unit.

Background Facts

On March 26, 1995, Alex Rivera was sleeping in his cell at the New York City Adolescent Reception and Detention Center in the Bronx. While he slept, another inmate, Curtis Armstrong, slashed him with a razor. Rivera sustained cuts to the back of his neck, the side of his face, and his arms.

Published on: January 2, 2026

Federal Court Reviews Excessive Force and Medical Care Claims in Newland v. Achute, 932 F. Supp. 529 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)

by Stephen Bilkis

Federal law allows incarcerated individuals to bring civil rights claims when they believe their constitutional rights were violated. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a person may sue state actors for conduct that deprives them of rights protected by the United States Constitution. In the prison setting, the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Courts have held that this protection applies to claims involving excessive force and denial of medical care. In Newland v. Achute, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York examined whether a former inmate presented sufficient evidence to proceed with claims that correction staff used excessive force and denied him proper medical treatment.

Background Facts

Wayne C. Newland was incarcerated at the Adolescent Reception Detention Center (ARDC) on Rikers Island in December 1991. He had pleaded guilty to criminal possession of stolen property and was awaiting sentencing. According to court records, the facility had an order requiring that he be produced in court on December 18, 1991 for sentencing.

Published on: December 9, 2024

Court allowed § 1983 claims in a prisoner abuse case involving failure to provide adequate medical care. Luckey v. City of N.Y., 991 N.Y.S.2d 34 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

by Stephen Bilkis

Prison abuse can occur when inmates are denied necessary medical treatment, leading to severe consequences for their health. Inmates have a right to adequate medical care, and failure to provide it can result in worsening of existing conditions or the development of new, serious health issues. This neglect may be deemed a violation of constitutional rights, particularly under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

When prison staff fail to provide necessary treatment and act with deliberate indifference, inmates can file a § 1983 claim alleging that their Eighth Amendment rights were violated. This type of claim requires proving that the deprivation of medical care was intentional or recklessly disregarded the inmate’s health needs. Successful § 1983 claims can lead to damages and other remedies, holding correctional facilities and staff accountable for the abuse and ensuring that inmates’ rights are upheld.

In Luckey v. City of N.Y., 991 N.Y.S.2d 34 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014), the court had to determine whether the city, correction officers, and other defendants were liable for alleged medical negligence and constitutional violations that contributed to an inmate’s death.

Published on: October 30, 2024

Supreme Court affirmed the denial of summary judgment dismissal in a jail suicide case. Rappaport v. Corr. Med. Care, 159 N.Y.S.3d 205 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

by Stephen Bilkis

The case of Adam Rappaport highlights the legal responsibilities of law enforcement and medical providers in ensuring the safety of individuals in custody. Rappaport was found hanging in his cell, which led to a lawsuit against several parties, including Correctional Medical Care, Inc. (CMC) and the Town of Guilderland. The plaintiff, individually and as the administrator of Rappaport’s estate, brought forth claims of negligence, wrongful death, and violations of federal law.

Background Facts

Adam Rappaport had a history of heroin use and was in the process of withdrawing when he was arrested on October 15, 2014. The following day, he was transferred from the custody of the Town of Guilderland to Albany County for detention at the Albany County Correctional Facility (ACCF). Upon his transfer to ACCF, Rappaport underwent a screening process conducted by a nurse employed by Correctional Medical Care, Inc. (CMC). During this screening, the nurse noted Rappaport’s history of heroin abuse, anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder. Rappaport reported that he had injected two bundles of heroin the day before his arrest and informed the nurse that he had never considered or attempted suicide. Despite his medical history and the fact that he was withdrawing from heroin, Rappaport was placed in the general population rather than being referred to the mental health unit.

Published on: October 28, 2024

Aughtry v. State, # 2019-029-033 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. May 22, 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

It’s no secret that most prisons in New York are dangerous and there is violence, particularly in the maximum security correctional facilities such as Sing Sing. Prisoners attack each other, leaving serious injuries. While corrections officers are charged with ensuring the safety of inmates, the facility is not always liable when an inmate is seriously injured by another inmate. On the other hand, there are instances in which an the facility can be held liable and required to pay compensation to the injured inmate or their family.

In the case of Aughtry v. State, # 2019-029-033 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. May 22, 2019), the legal proceedings focused on the state’s failure to provide adequate security at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, which led to an inmate’s severe injuries.

Background Facts

Published on: September 18, 2024

Court refused to hear inmates claims related to violation of freedom of religion. Word v. Croce, 00 Civ. 6496 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 6, 2001)

by Stephen Bilkis

Inmates in New York have rights to practice their religion, protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. These rights include the freedom to believe in and worship any religion of their choice. The New York Department of Corrections is required to accommodate inmates’ religious practices to the extent that it doesn’t interfere with prison security or discipline. This means providing reasonable opportunities for religious services, access to religious materials, and dietary accommodations for religious beliefs.

However, these rights are not absolute. Prison officials can impose restrictions on religious practices if they have a legitimate penological interest, such as maintaining order or security within the facility. Inmates may also face limitations if their religious practices pose a threat to themselves or others, or if accommodating their practices would place an undue burden on the prison system.

Inmates who believe their religious rights have been violated can seek recourse through the legal system. They may file grievances within the prison system or pursue legal action in state or federal court. Courts will consider the inmate’s claims and weigh them against the prison’s interests in maintaining security and order.

Published on: September 11, 2024

Court granted partial summary judgment; failure to intervene in prison assault case remains.. Sabuncu v. State, # 2016-041-037 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Jun. 21, 2016)

by Stephen Bilkis

While it stands to reason that if a corrections officer uses excessive force against a prisoner, that officer and the faclity would be liable for serious injuries suffered by the prisoner. However, it is also the case that under certain circumstances, the facility may be liable where one prisoner assaults and injures another inmate.

Failure to intervene refers to the omission by a person in a position of authority, such as a corrections officer, to take action to prevent harm when they have the opportunity and duty to do so. In the context of prison settings, it involves not stopping an assault or other harmful actions occurring between inmates. This failure can result in serious consequences for those harmed and may lead to legal liability for the responsible parties if it is determined that their inaction contributed to the injuries or harm suffered by the victim.

In Sabuncu v. State, # 2016-041-037 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Jun. 21, 2016), the inmate plaintiff alleges that correction officers failed to intervene when he was being assaulted by another inmate. The plaintiff is seeking to hold the correctional facility liable and has demanded compensation.

Published on: August 7, 2024

Second Circuit determined that inmate’s First Amendment rights and Eighth Amendment rights lacked clarity in their establishment during the relevant time period. Redd v. Wright, 597 F.3d 532 (2d Cir. 2010)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, inmates have rights to freedom of religion, protected under the First Amendment and RLUIPA. They cannot be subjected to medical procedures conflicting with their religious beliefs, as upheld by courts, ensuring religious accommodation within correctional facilities. In Redd v. Wright, 597 F.3d 532 (2d Cir. 2010) plaintiff Kevin Redd, who was an inmate at Auburn Correctional Facility, argued that their religious freedoms where violated because he refused to to take a test for TB.

Background Facts

The Department of Corrections (DOCS) conducts routine purified protein derivative (PPD) tests on inmates to detect latent tuberculosis (TB) infections. In 1996, DOCS established a policy where inmates who refused the PPD test were counseled and then placed in TB hold, resulting in keeplock status in their cells. These inmates were offered the PPD test daily for one week, weekly for one month, and monthly thereafter. Refusal led to one year in TB hold, during which three chest x-rays were taken. After a year and three negative x-rays, inmates could return to the general population.